DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 13-18, 20, and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohapatra et al. (US 20170217393 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mohapatra discloses a vehicle structure (Mohapatra, Fig. 1) comprising: an additively manufactured component (Mohapatra, Fig. 13, paragraph 61 described it can be additively manufactured) configured to be part of a vehicle (Mohapatra, Fig. 1), the additively manufactured component comprising a first layer, a second layer (Mohapatra, see annotated Fig. 13) and a hollow region (Mohapatra, Fig. 13 and paragraph 73, the hollow cells extend through the body therefore there’s a hollow region between the two layers) between the first layer and the second layer, wherein the first layer and the second layer are configured to distribute a vehicle load (Mohapatra, paragraph 49 describes induce crushing along a predetermined path, and since the layers of Fig. 13 comprises physical material, they will be able to distribute load; paragraph 39 described an impact and paragraph 51 described a frontal crash) imparted on the vehicle structure, wherein the first layer has a first geometry (Mohapatra, see annotated Fig. 13) and the second layer has a second geometry (Mohapatra, see annotated Fig. 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
455
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 13 from Mohapatra
Mohapatra Fig. 13 fails to disclose the first geometry is different from the second geometry.
Mohapatra paragraphs 52-53 teaches the first geometry is different from the second geometry (Mohapatra, varying wall thickness or stepped geometry will make the layers have different geometries; Fig. 13 already shows some unexplicit differences between the layer geometries).
Paragraphs 52-53 of Mohapatra is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle rail component as Fig. 13 of Mohapatra.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Fig. 13 of Mohapatra to incorporate the teachings of paragraphs 52-53 of Mohapatra with a reasonable expectation of success and have varying wall thicknesses and/or stepped geometry. Doing so allows controlled deformation in a progressive manner and maximize energy absorption in a crash.
Regarding claim 3, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 1, wherein the vehicle load comprises a crash load (Mohapatra, paragraph 39 described an impact and paragraph 51 described a frontal crash).
Regarding claim 4, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 1, wherein the difference between the first geometry and the second geometry includes asymmetry (Mohapatra, Fig. 13 and paragraphs 52-53, asymmetrical due to differences in thickness and/or stepped geometry).
Regarding claim 5, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 1, wherein the first geometry comprises at least a thickness, a cross-sectional geometry, a dimension, or a density of the first layer, and the second geometry comprises at least a thickness, a cross-sectional geometry, a dimension, or a density of the second layer (Mohapatra, see annotated Fig. 13, both layers would have these parameters, and in view of paragraphs 52-53 they can have different thicknesses, different cross-sectional geometries and different dimensions).
Regarding claim 6, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 5, wherein the first geometry or the second geometry varies along a respective length (Mohapatra, see annotated Fig. 13, varies due to the cells and cavities) of the first layer or the second layer.
Regarding claim 7, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 1, wherein the additively manufactured component is configured to absorb an amount of energy based upon a deceleration profile (Mohapatra, paragraph 64, the component can absorb energy during deceleration caused by an impact; paragraph 40 describes constant force during impact which would allow uniform deceleration).
Regarding claim 9, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 1, wherein the additively manufactured component is a frame rail (Mohapatra, Fig. 1 and 13).
Regarding claim 13, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 1, wherein the first layer comprises at least one region, wherein the at least one region includes a variable cross section profile (Mohapatra, see annotated Fig. 13, at the region with cells and cavities, which cause the variations).
Regarding claim 14, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 1, wherein the additively manufactured component further comprises at least one additively manufactured reinforcement element (Mohapatra, 15 in Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 15, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 13, wherein the variable cross section profile is configured to enhance at least a deformation mode or an energy absorption capacity (Mohapatra, Fig. 13 and paragraph 49, crush initiator 70 will enhance deformation mode by induce crush along predetermined path or enhance energy absorption capacity by allowing the component to deform at the crush initiator locations; also see paragraphs 52-53, the cells can have enhance a deformation mode or an energy absorption capacity).
Regarding claim 16, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 13, wherein the variable cross section profile comprises a gauged thickness (Mohapatra, see annotated Fig. 13, thickness varies due to cavities, cells, and the geometry; paragraph 67 of Applicant’s specification defines structural gauging as varied thickness across a part’s cross-section), a thickness of the gauged thickness being determined at least in part by a function of a length (Mohapatra, see annotated Fig. 13; additionally paragraph 52 teaches varying wall thickness in the direction from base to front member 4) of the additively manufactured component.
Regarding claim 17, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 16, wherein the variable cross section profile comprises at least one initiation feature (Mohapatra, 71 in Fig. 13; also the relatively thinner wall as described in paragraph 52) configured to initiate a structural collapse of the additively manufactured component during an impact event (Mohapatra, paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 18, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 17, wherein the at least one initiation feature is configured to initiate a structural collapse of the additively manufactured component during an impact event via at least a geometrical variation (Mohapatra, Fig. 13, groove 71 is a geometrical variation; as well as the relatively thinner wall in paragraph 52) or a material variation.
Regarding claim 20, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 17, wherein the additively manufactured component is configured to perform at least absorbing an amount of impact energy or re-distribute an amount of impact energy during the impact event (Mohapatra, Fig. 13 and paragraph 49, can absorb by deformation; can also re-distribute by selective placement of the crush initiators to direct the crushing to one side).
Regarding claim 31, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 1, wherein the additively manufactured component comprises 3-D printed first and second materials (Mohapatra, paragraph 77, first and second polymeric materials; claim 17 and 20 teaches additively manufacturing the component made from two materials; furthermore, paragraph 81 recites that the rail extensions can be made by additive manufacturing; where additive manufacturing are considered equivalent to 3d-printing as admitted by Applicant in paragraph 2 of the specification dated 7/13/2021).
Regarding claim 32, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 31, wherein the second material has a lower strength or higher ductility than the first material (Mohapatra, paragraph 125-126, second material can be unreinforced polymeric, and the first material can be reinforced polymeric, therefore the regular unreinforced polymeric second material would have lower strength than the reinforced first material).
Regarding claim 33, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 17, wherein the additively manufactured component comprises a first cross-sectional dimension through the at least one initiation feature and different from a second cross-sectional dimension not through the at least one initiation feature (Mohapatra, Fig. 13, dimension through initiation feature would be different from a dimension not through the feature, since the feature has geometries).
Regarding claim 34, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 17, wherein the at least one initiation feature comprises a plurality of indents (Mohapatra, Fig. 13, 70/71; also see paragraph 73).
Regarding claim 35, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 34, wherein a first indent of the plurality of indents comprises a first shape and a second indent of the plurality of indents comprises a second shape different from the first shape (Mohapatra, paragraph 73, indent 71 can have different shapes).
The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
“Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
See MPEP § 2143 for a discussion of the rationales listed above along with examples illustrating how the cited rationales may be used to support a finding of obviousness. See also MPEP § 2144 - § 2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations.
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results: One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the shapes in paragraph 73 of Mohapatra have similar functions. Since the shapes all teach an indent of similar function, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one known indent shape for another with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Doing so also allows customization in designs to optimize deformation behavior and creep performance.
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohapatra as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Jaradi et al. (US 20170203708 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 1, but fails to disclose a heat treated region.
Jaradi teaches a heat treated region (Jaradi, paragraph 31-32, additive manufacturing such as FDM or SLS can involve heating the material; paragraph 61 of Mohapatra discloses one can use FDM or SLS to make the component).
Jaradi is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle energy absorbing structure as Mohapatra.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle structure as taught by Mohapatra to incorporate the teachings of Jaradi with a reasonable expectation of success and choose FDM/SLS from the list of possible additive manufacturing methods such that there is a heat treated region. Doing so allows the additive manufacturing device to create the desired geometry of the product since melted material can bond together and is soft to easily form into shapes.
Regarding claim 19, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 17, wherein the at least one initiation feature is an additively manufactured feature (Mohapatra, paragraph 61).
Mohapatra fails to disclose a print parameter of a three dimensional (3D) printer.
Jaradi teaches a print parameter of a three dimensional (3D) printer (Jaradi, paragraph 31-32, for FDM, the parameter can be the melting temperature of the printing source material such that the initiation feature can be created as part of the component body geometry; for SLS, the parameter can be layer thickness or the selective laser sintering locations to create 2d layers of the desired object geometry and therefore forming the initiation feature).
Jaradi is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle energy absorbing structure as Mohapatra.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle structure as taught by Mohapatra to incorporate the teachings of Jaradi with a reasonable expectation of success and choose FDM/SLS from the list of possible additive manufacturing methods and use the parameters to create the desired geometries. Doing so avoids additional manufacturing steps after the additive manufacturing process, therefore saving costs and time.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohapatra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Renegar (US 20190152413 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 1, but fails to teach a foam.
Renegar teaches foam (Renegar, paragraph 26, foam in pockets, which is a hollow region).
Renegar is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle energy absorbing structure as Mohapatra.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle structure as taught by Mohapatra to incorporate the teachings of Renegar with a reasonable expectation of success and have foam in the hollow region. Doing so increases energy absorption capacity, while also minimizing mass and cost (Renegar, paragraph 26).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohapatra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tyan (US 10473177 B2).
Regarding claim 21, Mohapatra teaches the vehicle structure of claim 1, but fails to disclose the additively manufactured component is part of a vehicle chassis.
Tyan teaches the additively manufactured component is part of a vehicle chassis (Tyan, Fig. 20 and Col. 25 lines 20-32 and 53-58, the 3d printed component can be used in either the chassis or the crash cans).
Tyan is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle energy absorbing structure as Mohapatra.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle structure as taught by Mohapatra to incorporate the teachings of Tyan with a reasonable expectation of success and use the component as part of the chassis. Doing so allows the vehicle chassis to be designed to desired deformation characteristics and improves energy absorption of the vehicle chassis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see last paragraph on page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 12/5/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of same reference Mohapatra . See rejection above for details; Mohapatra teaches the layers and the hollow region as claimed in the amended claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Koppikar can be reached at (571) 272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612